After refusing to rule on a case involving a sperm donor who claimed parental rights, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a second rejection this week that means good news for LGBT families.
The court dismissed the appeal of two couples from Lexington, Massachusetts who said their school district violated their constitutional rights when it included LGBT-related books like King & King in its elementary school curriculum. This means that the dismissal of the case by District Court Judge Mark Wolf still stands. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected an earlier appeal in January.)
I’ve written about this case before. The Circuit Court’s ruling is worth quoting again, though, for it makes several good arguments on a matter many of us may find ourselves discussing, particularly in light of the ridiculous statement that marriage equality in California will require teachers to instruct kindergarteners “that gay marriage is no different than traditional marriage.”
The mere fact that a child is exposed on occasion in public school to a concept offensive to a parent’s religious belief does not inhibit the parent from instructing the child differently. A parent whose ‘child is exposed to sensitive topics or information [at school] remains free to discuss these matters and to place them in the family’s moral or religious context, or to supplement the information with more appropriate materials.’ . . . There is no free exercise right to be free from any reference in public elementary schools to the existence of families in which the parents are of different gender combinations.
Even when a book is chosen to influence children towards a particular viewpoint, the Court found it is acceptable if the end goal is tolerance:
It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage. That was the point of why that book was chosen and used. Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end. There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey [one of the plaintiff’s children] was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights.
Public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them.
While we’re on the matter of children’s books and censorship, Library Journal has an interview with Charlotte Glover, children’s librarian at the Ketchikan Public Library in Alaska and the state Chapter Councilor for the American Library Association. The article notes, “She’s been publicly critical of Palin, but, as the interview shows, she thinks collection decisions should be local.”
While on the surface that’s the same as the old “leave it to the states” argument against marriage equality, I think it works better in this instance, when there aren’t state lines being crossed by the people (or books) in question. If nothing else, Glover reminds us that LGBT-inclusive children’s books, like all others, should be of a certain quality in order to earn a spot on the shelves. (This is why it’s great to see the American Library Association putting out a yearly list of recommended, LGBT-inclusive books for children and young adults.)
Thank you, Dana. A fitting coda to Banned Books week.